Pegasos/MorphOS graphic boards compatibility list!!!!
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11762 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    >> perhaps it would make more sense to focus on available modern Radeons
    >> and skip the models in-between.

    > For the majority of MorphOS systems in use today (which are primarily AGP
    > based not PCIe) it would not.

    Then why develop new graphics drivers for MorphOS/PPC at all? The last Radeon AGP GPUs are in the R4xx series, which has long been 3D-supported. The last AGP-bridged Radeon PCIe GPUs are in the R7xx series. So let the MorphOS team add 3D support for R6xx/R7xx and be done with graphics driver development for MorphOS/PPC, right?

    > what would you recommend the developers focus on?

    Assuming significant work hasn't already been carried out for GCN1/2/3 driver development, and based on my list there, I'd recommend focussing on GCN4 drivers. On the other hand, taking into account the effort and time needed for graphics driver development carried out by a tiny team, as well as the prospect of MorphOS/x64 (there are no AMD APUs with GCN4, except on gaming consoles), focussing now on GCN5 or even RDNA may make sense.

    > If the future focus will be MorphOS x86-64, I'd suggest we consider
    > something that is compatible with AMD's APUs.

    Ignoring old TeraScale here, that would be GCN2, GCN3 or GCN5, then. Or RDNA for upcoming APUs.

    > Intel based hardware would require a discrete video card to maintain Radeon compatibility

    Yes, it seems the announced Intel CPU with on-chip AMD GPU went nowhere ;-)
  • »24.06.20 - 12:40
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    >Yes, it seems the announced Intel CPU with on-chip AMD GPU went nowhere ;-)

    That was no surprise. I can't imagine AMD would want to give up detailed info on their graphics hardware (and Intel would probably just use such an opportunity to gather info anyway).

    >focussing now on GCN5 or even RDNA may make sense.

    Or even RDNA2.

    I'd have to agree with you. But Mark doesn't seem to like to make jumps (unless you count jumping over the Radeon HD69XX series).

    In fact, moving straight to RDNA support seems to be the most practical.


    [ Edited by Jim 24.06.2020 - 10:19 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »24.06.20 - 14:00
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11762 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > I can't imagine AMD would want to give up detailed info on their graphics hardware

    That wouldn't have been the case. The chip was supposed to be two HBM2-linked dies put together into one processor package. No GPU internals required to be revealed to Intel for this.

    >> focussing now on GCN5 or even RDNA may make sense.

    > Or even RDNA2.

    Are there any RDNA2-based APUs or graphics cards out yet that MorphOS developers could now put their focus on?

    > jumping over the Radeon HD69XX series

    It's good that TeraScale 3 support will be omitted, if true. I'm curious what Bigfoot will jump to from TeraScale 2.

    > moving straight to RDNA support seems to be the most practical.

    I still would like to see GCN4 support for those potential dual booters. But let's see what Hans will go/jump to next, GCN5 or RDNA :-)
  • »24.06.20 - 18:33
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    >It's good that TeraScale 3 support will be omitted, if true. I'm curious what Bigfoot will jump to from TeraScale 2.

    That would be anyone's guess, I don't ask. But I'd agree that GCN4 makes sense.
    And RDNA may be way more power than we need.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »25.06.20 - 20:24
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11762 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > RDNA may be way more power than we need.

    Of course it is, as is GCN and most of TeraScale ;-)
  • »25.06.20 - 21:00
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > RDNA may be way more power than we need.

    Of course it is, as is GCN and most of TeraScale ;-)


    Agreed, I moved back to R500 in order to maintain OSX compatibility.
    That is more than powerful enough for me, and I'm not sure the R300s is all that well optimized.

    As to more than powerful enough,on a system basis we're already there, X64 will only take us further into that.

    [ Edited by Jim 25.06.2020 - 17:43 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »25.06.20 - 21:42
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 275 from 2015/6/30
    Gets interesting when your low end R7-240 and R7-250 become hard to find.
    What would determine a shift is if A-Eon can no longer source these for the complete basic AmigaOne X5000 systems. Polaris cards are still available though .

    Generally available.

    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    I still would like to see GCN4 support for those potential dual booters. But let's see what Hans will go/jump to next, GCN5 or RDNA :-)




    [ Edited by Spectre660 28.06.2020 - 17:50 ]
  • »28.06.20 - 20:44
    Profile